Where There's Will, There's a Way

Originally posted by dangerlinto Originally posted by PhilipJFry Magic players + internet = ego stroking argumentation I figured you learned that equation somewhere - maybe they don;t teach the good math in Canada. They do!  We call it "metric"

What kind of awful system would use base10.

Originally posted by walkerdog Originally posted by dangerlinto Originally posted by PhilipJFry Magic players + internet = ego stroking argumentation I figured you learned that equation somewhere - maybe they don;t teach the good math in Canada. They do!  We call it "metric" What kind of awful system would use base10.

Originally posted by dangerlinto The difference in the situations is very clear - and that is what makes the case to either restrict it or not very difficult to decide.  I've said several times I think that is a hard decision - but here is what it will be based on:   Do the DCI think leaving a card unrestricted will cause an unhealthy meta game?   That is the ONLY way they will decide whether a card will end up restricted.  Whether they want to wait to see what happens because they are not sure or go ahead and presuppose the outcome in advance isn't part of the equation - they could do either.  The argument presented failed to allow for both cases, and truly don't see a big difference between restricting a really good tutor in advance of another card's release (Mystical) and restricting a tutor before it's own release (Demonic) or restritcing a tutor cocurrently with another restriction (Vampiric) - at least not in the terms that the DCI should be forbidden from restricting anything until it's proven to be a problem.

Originally posted by dangerlinto Originally posted by theintangiblefatman Then we would appear to be in agreement; we have no idea whether or not Mystical and/or LED will be restricted with the release of Will. I've never said otherwise.  I *think* they will, and I *think* they should.  What i *know* is that he DCI doesn't always "wait for cards to be proven to be broken" before they restrict them, and see no reason why that should automatically apply to all restriction decisions as was called for. Originally posted by theintangiblefatman I haven't taken a rhetoric class since high school, so I don't really know what you want me to do in order to "[present] failure points." it's pretty simple.  If you think someone is using (by your own words) "faulty logic" then you show where/why/how the logic is faulty - you don't just say it is.  Which is all you have done.

The difference between Mystical and Demonic is that Mystical has been in Classic for a long time without problems, even with it being the primary tutor for a restricted card, namely Flash.  I don't think a restricted Yawgmoth's Will can break Mystical in the way that a restricted Flash couldn't, and although it might, there's IMO enough doubt that we should wait and see.

Originally posted by SICKSICKSICK Desire gets to play good cards like Gush and FOW that Nauseam doesn't. Will might make Desire good enough.

I think for sure Will makes Desire good, but Will + Academy makes it even better.  Desire also gets to run Tinker + Robot as an up-yours to Chalice, Trinisphere and other storm hate.

There's gotta be a decklist in there.  I'm going to work toward that over the next couple of weeks.

Funny thing about Desire is that classic is the only eternal format that has ever had access to 4x of it.

We have at least 7 days (and at least one PE) to prove that Will with 4x mystical and 4x LED is not too broken :) or to prove otherwise...

I'd start here

Classic Minds Desire

4x Minds Desire

1x Will

1x Demonic

1x Vamp

1x Imperial

4x Brainsorm

2x Mystical Tutor

4x Dark Ritual

4x Lotus Petal

1x Mana crypt

1x Tinker

1x Robot of choice

1x Necropotence

1x Echoing truth

1x Chain of vapor

2x Cabal Ritual

1x Tendirl of agony

4x Force of will

4x Duress/TS

4x Mana drain

2x Lion's eye diamond

1x Gifts ungiven

3x Ponder

3x Underground Sea

1x swamp

1x snow-covered Swamp

1x Island

1x Snow-covered Island

4x Polluted Delta

Originally posted by dangerlinto it's pretty simple.  If you think someone is using (by your own words) "faulty logic" then you show where/why/how the logic is faulty - you don't just say it is.  Which is all you have done.

In my original post, I said that the restriction of the cards you listed were not analogous to the situation at hand, because they were new cards entering the card pool, not a card which has operated without trouble for years.  I also later noted that the tone of the section from your post I originally quoted was unbecoming, however I don't see any reason to track down that quote, as that is much more so a matter of opinion.

Originally posted by theintangiblefatman This section, however, is a red herring.  The premature restriction of the cards you reference is analogous to the premature restriction of Yawgmoth's Will, which is not the topic at hand.  There is no precedent for the restriction of support cards upon the entrance of a restricted card to the card pool

You agree with this here:

Originally posted by dangerlinto The difference in the situations is very clear

I figured you could connect the dots on your own.

At some point it became obvious that we were discussing the matter from differing perspectives, at which point I attempted to tie up the loose ends and drop the matter.  I don't see any reason to track down those posts either.

Now, this conversation is clearly no longer serving my original intention - to alert you to a section of your logic which appeared flawed - so I will stop discussing the matter after this post.  Hopefully, it appropriately satisfies your curiosities.

While I agree that we should try to keep debate civil, I'd really hate to see someone quit posting on CQ because they said something dumb.  I do it too.